Bill!
What's not Zen about dancing thru the daffodils??! Sounds like
being alive to me.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Bill! <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, 30 August 2012, 14:15
*Subject:* Re: [Zen] mind games
Edgar,
Directly experiencing is zen. Understanding has nothing to do
with zen.
>From my perspective all attempts to understand and define
reality is like 'dancing through the daffodils'. It's fun and I
like to do it too sometimes, but it's not zen.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
wrote:
>
> Merle and Bill,
>
> Zen Realization is knowing and understanding reality. To
attain realization one must study reality and specifically how
that study reveals the nature of the illusions that interfere
with the realization of reality.
>
> Just dancing through the daffodils can be lots of fun. I have
no problem with that at all and do it myself. But that in itself
is NOT Zen.
>
> Neither is Bill's refusal to study reality and how its
illusions fool our Zen...
>
> You guys seem to think that Zen is just mindlessly having fun,
fun, fun until Buddha takes the T-bird away.....
>
> There is a lot more to it than that and you actually have to
use your reason to get to the point where you don't have to use
it and can directly experience.
>
> It's a colossal mistake to think that Zen is achieving a
particular meditative state of mind through sitting or dancing
mindlessly through the daffodils like Tiny Tim. That can be a
useful and wonderful experience but basically it's a serious
illusion to think that in itself is Zen...
>
> Zen is understanding and experiencing the true nature of
reality directly. To do that you must first exhaustively study
its FALSE nature. Realization can't be attained by avoiding that
effort...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Merle Lester wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > far too many words words..ramblings.
> > .get to the point.
> > ..the point is zen..
> > .zen is direct and hits the nail on the head first go...so
to speak..reaches the very heart and core of the matter
> > raving and rambling is just mind games that serve no
purpose..and creates one up manship as to who is "right " and
who is "wrong"
> > zen is
> > keep it simple
> > keep it sweet
> > and keep it to the "bloody " point
> > for jesus christ's sake
> > merle (howling and dancing with the yellow daffodils in the
spring sunshine, carrying a basket of fresh fruit on her head)
> >
> >
> > Edgar,
> >
> > Thanks for the long exegesis, but you're only proving my
point. Discussing Mu is not relevant.
> >
> > My point all along is Mu is not something you discuss or can
understand. Mu can only be experienced and demonstrated.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill!,
> > >
> > > We've discussed this before. Mu is the nothingness of all
things. What that means is that the materiality and apparent
self substances and qualities of all things are illusions
generated by mind. All the things of the world are just
information forms. They have none of their apparent material
substances. All they are is a logical computational structure
and much but not all of that is also an illusion of particular
observer minds as well.
> > >
> > > Reality consists of pure existence, Tao, Buddha Nature -
what I call ontological energy, in which purely logical forms
arise and continually self compute their state of existence of
the universe. These are interpreted by mind as material things
which are actually just more information forms of/encoding the
interactions of mind and external reality (there is actually no
division between 'mind' and 'external' reality but just to make
the point. How and why that is true requires another understanding).
> > >
> > > Since all forms are pure computational information in
ontological energy they have no self substances and thus are
called empty = Mu. So mu is exactly the same as Tao, Buddha
nature etc. just a term that emphasizes that the apparent
substance of reality is actually just pure information forms
rather than material substances.
> > >
> > >
> > > If one wants a God the only consistent definition of God
would be the universe (reality) itself. That is the best
definition because then there can be no doubt but that God does
exist since the universe exists. And the age old arguments over
the nature and characteristics of God becomes solvable because
it is just what science and reason tells us about the nature of
reality. (Merle will howl here but this definition does not deny
a spiritual awe and appreciation towards God and nature in the
slightest, in fact by revealing God and reality's true nature it
better reveal its wonders and makes it easier to appreciate
spiritually!)
> > >
> > > In this definition of God the forms, the computational
information structure of reality, becomes analogous to thoughts
in the mind of God by which the universe continually creates
itself by self computing its current form state of being.....
These thoughts manifest as the physical reality of the universe
in the minds of observers or organisms of all species. Sticking
with the God analogy one could say that the thoughts of God
continually create the universe...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill's error is that he denies the computational
information structure of reality. Bill misunderstands illusion
to mean that the forms do not exist. The correct understanding
is that the forms DO exist but they are empty of material self
substances.
> > >
> > > No master I'm aware of ever claimed the forms do not
exist. They all say the forms are empty, which implies they do
exist, but are pure form without their apparent substances. It
is the apparent substances of forms, not the forms themselves,
which do not exist.
> > >
> > >
> > > But then when that is understood the next level of
understanding is that the illusion of materiality DOES exist,
but it exists as illusion, not reality. Illusion understood as
illusion IS reality. It is only illusion understood as reality
that is illusion.
> > >
> > > Reality includes everything without exception but only as
it is in its true nature. Illusion does exist, but only as
illusion. Thus illusion is part and parcel of reality.
> > >
> > > Thus realization excludes nothing because everything is
part of reality. Everything remains exactly the same as it was
before. It is just experienced as it actually is, not as
illusion masquerading as reality, but as the illusory nature of
reality. That reality consists of illusion...
> > >
> > > Reality consists of illusion. Realization is the direct
experience of this...
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:17 PM, Bill! wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kris,
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely! I don't understand Mu! either...Bill!
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Kristopher Grey <kris@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/28/2012 4:19 AM, Bill! wrote:
> > > > > > I have heard it said that 'all sentient beings have
Buddha Nature'.
> > > > > > That doesn't exclude non-sentient beings/items from
also having Buddha
> > > > > > Nature, but I cannot understand how they could.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's this business of having, of this having that,
that creates such
> > > > > misunderstanding.
> > > > >
> > > > > MU!
> > > > >
> > > > > KG
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
